Mapping Still Unclear

I get the vision of where we are going in terms of the semantic web, RDA, FRBR, etc. Believe me, I want to be there as much as anyone. But I still cannot for the life of me understand how we will get there. To paraphrase Janet Swan Hill, I need the intervening steps mapped out and I do not seem to be hearing those. Or else, I am missing them, which is entirely possible ...

Thanks to Georgie Briscoe for her interesting program on quality control in our catalogs! Hopefully we can pursue Barbara Bintliff's suggestion of a new column in TSLL to share our strategies for cleanup projects to catch the errors that Georgia described to us. Look for her article on her research project in an upcoming LLJ.

It was exciting the way the program Q&A portions often produced ideas like this that tech services law librarians could tackle to achieve a desired end. My concern is whether we have the time and energy to make them all a reality. After all, the themes I heard this year remained: budget and staff shortfalls, cross training, justification of what we do to administration (usually in terms of measurement of data), etc. And of course it is the year of RDA, so we are wondering how to grapple with that. How little sleep can tech services law librarians operate on? I guess we will find out!

The meeting was exhausting because there was so much content to absorb in such a short amount of time. I extend my sincere thanks to TS and OBS for their hard work in providing that content. And thanks especially to my committed and enthusiastic colleagues who make up those SISs. You are all amazing!

Demystifying Batch-load Analysis Program

Demystifying Batch-Load Analysis: What You Need to Know About Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records

Co-sponsored and co-funded by OBS-SIS & TS-SIS

When: Sunday, July 13, 2008, 4:15-5:15 PM

Where: OCC-E146

Handout available at: http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/Batchload+Analysis

Description: The availability of vendor-supplied bibliographic records for batch-loading into our local catalogs presents new challenges: How should my library evaluate the quality of vendor-supplied MARC records before acquiring them? What role can the TS-SIS Task Group on Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records play in this process? This program will introduce ways to use readily available tools to analyze batches of MARC records. It will help libraries that have purchased access to packages such as MOML, LLMC, BNA, CIS, WLX, etc. and are considering how to provide access to them through their catalogs.

Coordinator: Ellen McGrath, University at Buffalo

Moderator: Kevin Butterfield, College of William and Mary

Speaker: Yael Mandelstam, Fordham University

Learning outcomes:

1. Participants will be able to identify quality control issues and problems associated with the batch-loading of vendor-supplied bibliographic MARC records

2. Participants will be able to analyze and modify batches of MARC records using tools available in their libraries

Cataloging and Classification Subcommittee Meeting

Since there was a reporter for this meeting, my blog will be brief. Although I prefer dispersing kudos liberally, I have to complain that it was very difficult to hear these proceedings. Granted I do not hear well, but since we are a greying profession, I suspect that I am not alone. The content of this meeting was highly important, and people have a right to hear information necessary for their work. Excuse me, I am now stepping down from my soap box.

Not surprisingly, the meeting was extremely well-organized. First, there were announcements. These were followed by Representatives' Reports: The ALA ALCTS CCS Subject Analysis Committee (SAC) report was presented by Yael Mandelstam who also reported on the Task Force on Inherently Legal Subject Headings, a very valuable project. The MARBI report was given by George Prager. And the Cataloging and Classification Section: Description and Access (CC:DA) report was given by Kathy Winzer. The Representatives' Reports were followed by the Task Group Reports. First Terri Saye presented the Task Group Standards for Vendor-supplied Bibliographic Records. Then Ellen McGrath presented the Classification and Subject Cataloging Policy Advisory Working Group, including a discussion of the KF1 draft table. A majority of those in the meeting were in favor of the KF1 draft by Marie Whited. Comments about the draft will be recorded.

Jolande Goldberg gave the LC Update. She said the LC structure would stay as it is, but there will be changes. An action plan will be necessary and a report will go out. There will be an incresed use of Classification Web and more authority records. There will also be authority records for form subdivisions. Jolande referred people to the CPSO website. She noted that LC lost close to 30% of its classification staff and pointed out that they cannot catalog and digitize both; there is no money.

TSLL will no doubt have a fuller report on this important meeting.

Head of Technical Services Roundtable

A lively discusssion ensued between Technical Services librarians on a variety of topics at the roundtable. Some of the topics included the following. What to do with serials check in clerks that don't have as much to do now that we have electronic resources. What to do with bored library assistants. What should be our philosophy on hiring? How do we instill work ethics in our employees? A plug was put in for two workshops that we hope might get approved for a future meeting - How to manage different generations and personalities of people and what are technical service librarians going to be doing in the future.

W-2, Delivering the Goods: Effective & Efficient Acquisitions Processes

Saturday, July 14, 2007.
I have been an acquisitions librarian for a little over a year now. So I was a member of the Acquisitions Workshop on Saturday to confirm that I had learned a little something over the past year and to learn whatever I could about being a competent Acquisitions Librarian from here on out. I did indeed confirm that what I have been doing over the past year has been what others are doing, and I also learned quite a few things that I will take back and hopefully implement in my institution.
The Workshop started off with introductions by Lorna Tang from the Univ. of Chicago. Carol Nicholson, Univ. of N.C. was up first with an overview of what it means to be an Acquisitions Librarian, Collection Dev. Libn., Technical Services Libn. or some combination. She emphasized that the Acquisitions Librarian should be the one to delegate authority and duties for acquisitions work to others. This person should also be the one that faculty, firm partners, judges, etc. communicate with. The Acq. Libn. should be the one to work out problems.
Next on the agenda was Betty Roeske, Katten Muchen, with a perspective from a firm acq. libn.
The wonderful points I got from her were to create a generic e-mail account for internet updates, advertisements, etc. to come to rather than having it come to a real person that may leave or be out for a while. This account also lets you monitor e-mails or alerts that may be going to other people and determining if they are working. Betty also says what she does is create a serial record for all electronic products. This serial record is not for check in but for notes about license agreements, passwords, # of people allowed, when invoice is due. Any information that staff may need to monitor this electronic resource. I am definitely going home to implement this !!
Next up was Melody Lembke, Collection Mgmt Serv. Dir from LA. County Law Library. She was there to tell us all we needed to know about vendors and publishers ! Anyway, as much as she or anyone else knows about publishers on any given day !! One of her point of interests was that 80% of your material probably comes from the Big 3 publishers. You probably have just as much trouble with invoices, customer service, etc. with these 3 as you do with all your other hundreds of publishers in your vendor database. EDI invoicing is certainly a wave of the future and if all publishers can get with the program, then all of us should be willing to go that route to save time and be more efficient in our acq. process. Negotiation is really big issue today with publishers as it may never have been in the past.
After lunch, when people were trying to stay awake, Jim Mumm from Marquette Univ., regaled us with how to keep superb budgets and do wonderful reports and graphs for the higher ups that control the purse strings. The short and sweet explanation of what budgeting is: We don't know where we are beginning, we don't know where we are going to end, and you don't know what you will encounter along the way, but you must have a budget and strive for it to be balanced at all times. Quite an undertaking for anyone !! Jim also re-emphasized the 5 principles in the AALL Guide to Fair Business Practices for Legal Publishers.
Richard Vaughan from Indiana Univ. told us all we ever needed to know about collection development and weeding. Put everything in your collection development policy that you might need to refer to later, such as what do we do about retaining those West annual pubs. now?, is a gift policy in your C.D. policy? Weeding should be routine and it should be for getting rid of old editions. De-selection is the process of cancellation for thing you no longer need.
The workshop was wonderful and TS has not had one since 1995. The theme of the day was DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT. Keep paper, or computer, records of who asked for what, correspondence with the sales rep., the p.o., follow-up, e-mails about returns or claims, tracking info. for returns, etc. etc. etc. You never know when you might need some tiny little piece of the paper trail when someone asks you a question.
Hopefully, I learned a great deal, and will be able to put into practice many of the great things that these librarians had to impart to us. Thanks to each of them for putting on this great WS.
Look forward to a more complete description of this Workshop in the TS Newsletter in September.
Sue Burkhart, Technical Services Libn., U.S. Court of Appeals Library, 11th Circuit.